The occupods at first responded by noting they are already feeding the homeless people who are camping with them at the Dewey Square tent city, but are now asking visitors to bring canned goods with them this weekend for donation to the food bank - and to donate money directly to it.

Open Media Boston, meanwhile, uses the food-bank kerfuffle to launch a the next STUPID F$&KING RIGHT-WING MEME about #OccupyBoston. We seem to have the next one right here: That somebody spit on a Coast Guard member as she walked by the encampment. Not true, Occupy Boston says, noting the presence of veterans and reserve members within its ranks.

Topics:

Free tagging:

Comments

@adamg: "Showing a newfound concern for the poor, conservative critics of Occupy Boston sprang into action..."
---Newfound concern for the poor? Really? I guess you dispute all of those studies over the years showing conservatives to be far more charitable than liberals, from donating blood to helping the poor.

Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

Of course most liberals would give you the shirt off...someone elses back.

Does it account for volunteer hours? What about the many liberals who take lower paying jobs for the sake of the social benefit? Think about teachers, nurses, social workers, etc. Many who choose such professions could make more money doing something more self-centered, but they prefer the work that benefits others. Does Professor Brooks (or do you) consider these contributions in the analysis?

You mean "American Enterprise Institute" President Arthur C. Brooks? AEI is one of the most conservative-biased "think tanks" around outside of The Heritage Foundation. I wonder how he could ever reach the conclusion that conservatives are more generous...it couldn't be to sell books to all his conservative friends so they can feel self-justified in their awesomeness, could it?

Also realize you're quoting the guy who said that liberals will surely die off soon leaving only conservatives left to walk the Earth because liberals have 41% less babies than conservatives.

Also, so you don't think I'm just trashing the messenger and not the message, his entire book plays loose with the fact that liberals tend to live in urban areas with higher costs of living and his metrics are all based on gross income not disposable income. Furthermore, all of the conservative giving tends to go to very specific people or groups of people (like their own church) whereas liberals tend to give to broader ranges of interest and causes so while they give less, they make far more impact in doing so.

Sources matter, especially when they're from think tanks set up to push an agenda. It's called astroturf, and people need to be careful because both parties and multiple special interests do it.

This is the same thinktank that will claim, unbashfully, that only 59% of the population pays taxes and the rest are freeloading miscreants.

What they don't tell you is how they come to that number: They look at federal income tax only, and they take the absolute highest estimated rate.

They filter out any and all tax loopholes, or common tax reduction that millionaires and billionaires always pay a lawyer or accountant to do. They don't count healthcare or SS taxes, which are usually the biggest chunk of taxes on the middle class paycheck. Nor do they count any regressive tax, which typically are instituted at the state level: Use fees, registration fees, state income tax, sales tax, ect.

So yes, 58% are the only people paying tax; if we're only considering "federal income tax" as the only tax and forgetting about the way you can reduce your exposure.

Mr. Fish, have you given the shirt off your back? Literally a shirt off your back? How often do you give clothes or other things away to people you don't know? Do you make regular contributions or give only when "the spirit moves you"? Giving at church does not count; church is self-serving.

There was an evening when I actually was in a position to help by giving my shirt to another person. I had a jacket, shirt and t-shirt. More than I needed. We both walked away with what we needed.

Studies are tricky things. A single study is the trickiest. Unless it is corroborated by other similar studies then its validity is low.

I read that some of the food trucks were disappointed because they had ordered extra food and supplies for the event. In response, a protester said that the businesses should be grateful to them for what they were doing.

Adam, it wasn't a "he" who was spat upon, it was a she. No surprise they would pick on a woman. Meanwhile, if this is a "right wing meme", do you somehow know that the female United States Coast Guard officer who reported this is a right winger or are you suggesting that those influential, persuasive Boston right wingers got her to lie? Keep in mind that if she truly is an officer as reported today by some media, then she has higher education and training requirements than an enlisted sailor, plus a Presidential commission. Regardless, these are pretty serious charges by those doubting her. Can they back them up?

BOSTON (FOX 25 / MyFoxBoston.com) - The Coast Guard in Boston confirmed that a woman in uniform was harassed and spat upon near Occupy Boston protesters. The woman was walking to the train and said protesters spit on her twice, called her foul names and even threw a water bottle at her.Now, the Coast Guard is warning all staff working on Atlantic Avenue to avoid those protesters while in uniform.

That is sad. Really sad. Could be a protester, could be one of the homeless crazies that congregate around South Station (not to say the two are mutually exclusive).

But honestly Fox can't get all worked up about this and still ignore the similarly base level of civility shown to servicemen and civilian alike at the debates two weeks ago. It's not acceptable no matter who does it. At least Romney will be consistent here and ignore both actions.

I question the accuracy of this whole thing. Notice that every time any type of protest occurs, from the 1960s onward, urban legends arise of uniformed military personnel being "spit upon". However, if it is accurate, what exactly does the Coast Guard have to do with the goals of Occupy Boston? It would stand to show how misguided the protesters really are. Which is fairly obvious anyway.

I'm highly dubious of reports of this. This is a long standing right wing meme which goes back at least to the Vietnam War where the right wing tried to paint the anti-war movement, and the counter culture in general, as being anti-serviceman. The sociologist Jerry Lembke did an interesting book "The Spitting Image" where he interrogates this meme. He points out that the underlying premise of the meme, that the anti-war movement hated the troops, was false. On a philosophical level, the anti-war movement considered the troops to be victims of the "unjust" war in Vietnam just as much as the Vietnamese civilians were. Indeed, if you listen to protest songs of the time one of the most common memes is that of the soldier being sent to die in a foreign land. More practically soldiers also made excellent recruits for the anti-war movement since they could offer authoritative first hand testimony about how wrong the war was. Many vets who joined the anti-war movement, like John Kerry became among its most famous figures. Lembke then goes on to examine contemporary news reports of the time and the only instance he can find of spitting on veterans was when a group of pro-war counter protesters spit on some people, including veterans, who were protesting the war (although in their defense he notes that the veterans were not wearing uniforms or other indicators of their service and so the counter-protesters likely did not target them specifically cause they were veterans). It's hard to prove a negative, but Lembke points out that the reports of spitting tended to come out years, sometimes many years after the fact and some of the reported incidents of spitting were logistically unlikely or impossible such as stories of servicemen walking a gauntlet of spitting and fruit throwing hippies or stories of spitting incidents occurring to returning troops at airports where no troops returned.

Now we KNOW for a fact in this case that the anti-protesters have disparaged and, in the case of the cops, manhandled veteran who are protesting in Dewey Square. Seems likely that this was either fabricated or was some incident unrelated to the protest.

And it certainly must be said that the alleged behaviour of these few 'protesters' seems very different from anything reported or claimed about the Occupy Boston people so far.

I can believe that someone did this to a CG officer (although I will be looking for other news sources to confirm Fox's report), but I think it much more likely that the perps were local punks looking for an excuse to act out, or even someone looking to smear the OB rep in the press.

It seems to me that the event, if confirmed, is similar to that of the numerous Tea Party protesters recorded saying or showing racist and violent rhetoric. Are they 'part' of the movement? Do they speak for it or even represent its true nature?

The entire incident has the makings of situation manipulated Randolph Hearst. Oh wait, it's a Fox News. No difference.

Question: Why no surprise "they" would pick on a woman? Why is that?

Checking channels 4,5,7 websites, the Globe and the Boston Herald, this item seems to not appear on their sites. It is as though it didn't exist.

Why the assumption that the person who spat on the Coastie was from Occupy Boston? The person spitting could have been a gangbanger out to make trouble, any unhappy person looking to create trouble, it could be a someone who was angry at the Coastie for any number of reasons.

Making accusations without evidence is usually about creating discord and conflict. That is consistent with Fox News and anyone else who wants to follow in the footsteps of Randolph Hearst.

I bet if a doctor who performs abortions walked by a Tea Party rally, he'd get spit on too. But because of the right-wing bias inherent in our culture, they'd be let off the hook for their reasonable reaction to a "baby killer", whereas spitting on an actual baby killer - a member of the armed forces - is some sort of horrible crime. I am the 99%.

@3.14159: So Coasties deserve to be spat upon, because when they're not saving or delivering babies on everything from kayaks to cruise ships, they're killing them? The "General Assembly" should appoint you spokesman.

Plenty of members of the coast guard are in Iraq right now, no doubt helping to look for any of Dubya's weapons of mass destruction that might be hidden inside impoverished children. The fact that this Little Eichmann isn't overseas is no excuse.

We know the USCG has been deployed to most wars and had the highest per capita losses of all branches in Vietnam. But their deployment isn't the issue, your claim that they deserve to be spat upon because they're baby killers is. Can you enlighten us on the baby killing by USCG?

... I suspect they were YOUR ideological soul-mates. Liberals these days tend to have far more respect for military men and women (and veterans) than do right-wingers -- even if they don't always agree with the _missions_ these people are sent on.

Contradicting his statements as a candidate for president, Sen. John Kerry claimed in a 1971 television interview that he threw away as many as nine of his combat medals to protest the war in Vietnam.

"I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine medals," Kerry said in an interview on a Washington, D.C., news program on WRC-TV called Viewpoints on Nov. 6, 1971, according to a tape obtained by ABCNEWS.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Kerry has denied that he threw away any of his medals during an anti-war protest in April 1971.

Speaking of far-left Kerry, who was priveleged long before he came across his second wife's first husband's fortune, he donated zero to charity in 1995 and a whopping $2750 in 2000. The rest must have been donated as "volunteer hours".

Whatever the (slender at best) merits of the factoids you are dredging up from the past, they have nothing to do with the behavior of the folks participating at OB (and similar OWS-inspired events) -- or (more generally) the behavior of young to middle-aged "liberals" at the present time.

If we want to talk about people getting what they deserve, I have an idea. Let's immunize the spat upon officer from prosecution, and let her head back down there.

My guess is that she would make very quick work of the imbeciles involved, and boy would I like to see that.

Incidentally, if the few people engaged in bad conduct in the camp are indeed "trojans" as people have claimed, the OBers would be smart to root them out themselves. Otherwise they will become the public face of the local Occupy branch, which many of 99.99% of the local population who are not protesting in Dewey Sq. are already beginning to tire of hearing about.

... the OBers do? They have no right to forbid anyone to hang around the fringes of the site. I think it is safe to assume that if this happened in the midst of the encampment, in full view of bona fide participants, people _would_ have objected to such behavior (and would have offered assistance and apologies).

There is no need for the OBers to do anything more. Spitting on someone is a battery, and the police could swear out a criminal complaint against the perp.

My larger point was the more important one - either the OBers properly and quickly address bad acts among the tents, or everything else that they are trying to accomplish (which honestly, I still cannot get a handle on - is there somewhere online where they have posted some proposed legislation or at least a detailed list of injustices that they want fixed and how they propose to do so?) will be lost in stories like this regardless of whether they are true or not.

One must be with either #Occupy, otherwise they must be with the Tea Party. Anarchy or big government. Worship the military or despise it. Falling anywhere in the middle raises suspicion. Are we that polarized?

That one was funny. And kind of true. The problem with his style is that it only works when it does raise an element of truth or at least require us to reconsider what we think to be the truth. Usually he fails, but once in a while, we get a nugget like this one.

Plenty of members of the coast guard are in Iraq right now, no doubt helping to look for any of Dubya's weapons of mass destruction that might be hidden inside impoverished children. The fact that this Little Eichmann isn't overseas is no excuse.

...not that that stopped Fox25 from jumping all over it, this was their LEAD STORY all morning; they seem singularly determined to roust that group off the Greenway, regardless of what this group is protesting (admittedly, the group has done a terrible job detailing exactly what they want to accomplish, but I like seeing free speech in action, minus any alleged spitting -- there is nothing more truly American). As someone else referenced, I've seen some nutbags on the T do far worse than spit on people (regardless of whether the perps were homeless, drunk, sober, rich, middle class or poor) and I'm not about to indict an entire group based on one alleged incident.

Why isn't Fox 25 or anyone investigating Councilor Murphy's BS claim about the $2 million overtime costs to the city? The math just doesn't add up...

Why is it every time someone at the Occupy rallies do something dumb (spitting, yelling at old Jewish people, holding up signs like "Down with Columbus") they are a trojan / shill / plant / fringe element?

Could it just be that more of the groups are unbalanced than the college aged hipsters would like to let on? Has anyone let the homeless guy they're feeding to tweet anything. That would be hilarious!

Even Bill Clinton said on Letterman they had better figure out a message soon or they will be marginalized, unlike the Tea Party - love 'em or hate 'em - they turned into a powerful political force with a simple focused message of lower taxes and a targeted well-funded political campaign.

Other than we know you're mad as hell and you're not going to take it anymore, we're waiting.

Social justice and we are the 99% are unacceptable answers as are give me a job and throw me a bone, pay my student loan.

1. Break up the monopolies. The so-called "Too Big to Fail" financial companies – now sometimes called by the more accurate term "Systemically Dangerous Institutions" – are a direct threat to national security. They are above the law and above market consequence, making them more dangerous and unaccountable than a thousand mafias combined. There are about 20 such firms in America, and they need to be dismantled [...]

2. Pay for your own bailouts. A tax of 0.1 percent on all trades of stocks and bonds and a 0.01 percent tax on all trades of derivatives would generate enough revenue to pay us back for the bailouts, and still have plenty left over to fight the deficits the banks claim to be so worried about [...]

3. No public money for private lobbying. A company that receives a public bailout should not be allowed to use the taxpayer's own money to lobby against him. You can either suck on the public teat or influence the next presidential race, but you can't do both [...]

4. Tax hedge-fund gamblers. For starters, we need an immediate repeal of the preposterous and indefensible carried-interest tax break, which allows hedge-fund titans like Stevie Cohen and John Paulson to pay taxes of only 15 percent on their billions in gambling income, while ordinary Americans pay twice that for teaching kids and putting out fires [...]

5. Change the way bankers get paid. We need new laws preventing Wall Street executives from getting bonuses upfront for deals that might blow up in all of our faces later. It should be: You make a deal today, you get company stock you can redeem two or three years from now. That forces everyone to be invested in his own company's long-term health – no more Joe Cassanos pocketing multimillion-dollar bonuses for destroying the AIGs of the world.

And the Teahadists have a coherent message? Taxes = evil, government = evil, Obama = Kenyan socialist? I guess they do, but it's not one people agree with. Not to mention the creeping Christianist rhetoric.

Could be the reason they have a net favorable rating of negative13 percent

2. Pay for your own bailouts. A tax of 0.1 percent on all trades of stocks and bonds and a 0.01 percent tax on all trades of derivatives would generate enough revenue to pay us back for the bailouts, and still have plenty left over to fight the deficits the banks claim to be so worried about [...]

A cost of a tax such as this would just be passed along to the underlying investors and wouldn't cost the firms one cent. It would increase expenses for mutual funds which would lead to a decrease the returns. My 401(k) is having enough problems as it is these days without adding more costs on top of it.

My primary bank is a local bank, but I do have a BOA account and debit card, and BOA gives me back more money than these local banks ever could. The local banks have better CD rates, savings rates, and lower fees, but if you do things the right way, banks like BOA can do wonders for the little man.

Or am I missing something? Is BOA just making me a sucker by giving me $400 in free cash a year for paying my bills on time and using their cards?

HOWEVER, - that's way too complicated for a political message - they'd have to simplify it - even if you don't like the Teahadists you can (and did) boil their message down to less than ten words.

I like your points - but a few counterpoints:

1) I think you can regulate them - you don't have to break them up - there are very legitimate reasons for having companies this big. Everyone is looking for someone to blame for the whole mess and it boiled down to one overarching problem - these companies were in one way or another overleveraged. Take away the extreme levels of leverage and we don't end up with these problems. It's not a problem of reregulating or deregulating - you have to regulate the right things. Sarbanes Oxley and Dodd Frank are both perfect examples of rules for the sake of rules that do nothing but add cost to the consumer.

2) Perhaps Fine - but only for the "at risk" high stakes institutions - don't punish the little guy. It's already hard enough on people like me and my clients to achieve reasonable returns with all the expenses built into the system - I fight tooth and nail to knock 10-15 basis points off the cost of an investment - I don't need the government putting it back on.

3) Fair - until they pay back their debt. I'd like to see a lot of reforms around lobbying. I disagree with the supreme court - corporations are not people - personally I like the rule I instituted in my own practice - you can't donate to anybody you can't vote for and corporations can't vote - for that matter neither can unions.

4) 100% agree and while you're at it fix all the crazy loopholes in things like 529 college savings plans and trust law that can be used to avoid estate taxes. These things were made up by a bunch of rich Senators sitting around a bar figuring out how to get out of paying taxes.

5) I'd probably disagree with you here - government has a notoriously poor track record of trying to control the price of anything. It's a nice ideal - it never works - and even your recommendation is not foolproof (John Paulson, hedge fund hero of the subprime mortgage short is only now paying people off for the profits they helped him make in 2008 under a deferred comp plan - guess what - his fund is off 47% this year - so much for long term thinking). I think an appropriate regulation environment is good - but you need experts designing it - kind of like Kennedy and JP Morgan did back in the 30's and 40's with the investment advisor acts and other financial reforms. To this day they work pretty well.

It would have been great PR and if occupy boston would have relocated their tent city for the food truck event. Boston doesn't revolve around occupy boston... or at least I hope it doesn't yet. The Greenway is for all to enjoy not just the tent city kids.

occupy boston is a bunch of trust fund fags. the jobs are out there, they just don't want to work them because they think they should be paid $25 an hour to work at starbucks with their philosophy degrees.

A young protester from Occupy Boston was interviewed on the news last night and he had such a sense of entitlement I couldn't believe my ears. He haugtily said "not only do we want jobs, we want GOOD jobs, with GOOD pay". Exactly why is the government, or whoever these people are vaguely protesting against, obliged to provide people with GOOD, HIGH PAYING jobs? If they start handing those out let me know and I will be first in line. Wouldn't it be more realistic to accept a perhaps less than perfect job as one works towards a more suitable job? Granted, I am aware that even less than perfect jobs aren't readily available, but this guy's attitude was unbelieveable.

No, you're right, he's wrong. We DON'T need GOOD jobs with GOOD pay. What we need is more middle-aged bread winners willing to work for minimum at McDonald's. Why? Well because the American dream is just out of reach for the lucky order taker who advances up the ladder to shift supervisor.

up

Voting is closed. 0

Support Universal Hub

Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.